SAN FRANCISCO — A real estate developer that allegedly provided asbestos-laden pipes to a worker who later developed mesothelioma obtained a victory in court.
State Appeals Judge Henry Needham, on the bench of the California First District Court of Appeal, issued a 23-page ruling on Nov. 11, reversing the Alameda County Superior Court's decision in the lawsuit, filed by Frank Hart against Keenan Properties Inc.
Hart, who worked as a pipe layer, sued Keenan on allegations that while he was working at a construction site for one of the defendant's projects in McKinleyville, the developer, as well as other companies involved in the project, provided pipes that were made of asbestos cement, causing him to be exposed to the substance.
Supervisor John Glamuzina stated that Hart and the rest of the crew he supervised had laid over 4,000 feet of pipe in 1977 and "observed Mr. Hart cut and bevel asbestos-cement pipe without any respiratory protection," the court ruling said.
Representatives from the construction company Christeve Corporation and from Keenan denied that the companies had provided pipes containing asbestos.
Hart later developed mesothelioma and sued Keenan, the building contractor and the pipe supplier for personal injury and loss of consortium on Nov. 6, 2016, with a jury deciding in his favor on Jul. 14, 2017, awarding damages.
In his appeals court ruling, Judge Needham considered the testimony of Olga Glamuzina, who worked for Christeve, labeling Glamuzina's claim that Keenan had supplied asbestos-laden pipes as "inadmissible hearsay" and stating that "there was no other evidence Keenan supplied the pipes."
"Accordingly, we reverse the judgment against Keenan," the judge said.
"Appellant Keenan fails to show that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Glamuzina’s testimony. Of course, it was up to the jury to decide whether to believe Glamuzina’s testimony and trust his recollection of what he saw on the pipe invoices, and Keenan’s lawyer was free to present evidence and argue that Glamuzina was incorrect. But any doubts as to Glamuzina’s recollection went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility," Needham said.
California First District Court of Appeal Case number A152692